By Vishwamithra –

“A man who has been through bitter experiences and traveled far enjoys even his sufferings after a time”
~ Homer, The Odyssey

A debate is being deliberately choreographed to rationalize a seemingly irrational argument to explore whether Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the government led by the National People’s Power are on the left or right of the political spectrum. It would have been crystal clear had such an argument or debate could have had more relevancy when the ‘cold war’ was shaping and defining the various popular uprisings and armed revolutions against some of the most brutal political leaders when they reached their respective climaxes to power.

To identify Anura Kumara Dissanayake, our current President and place him in this category or the other is utterly ludicrous and futile. At the same time, it is even more absurd to address this issue in a vacuum. As history always teaches us, no discussion of any major episode in man’s journey on earth outside a given context of attendant historical events is possible, leave alone fruitful. In fact, Karl Marx and Engels have repeatedly written about man being a product of the objective and material circumstances he grows up in.

However, the whole panorama of history, as has been penned by many an erudite scholar is exclusively a story of man advancing from one war or armed conflict to the next. Defeat and destruction of the adversary is depicted in the most unique and celebratory fashion while they disregard to mention even in one single paragraph to tell us how the ordinary man and woman lived their lives in those epic periods of time. We come across unending wars, as was illustrated and celebrated in Western history of Greek epic poems; Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are two great examples of the ancient Greek life and celebration of victories and defeats of human conflicts. When we read history, the history books dwell mostly in the glorious triumphs of the marching victors, brandishing their weapons, armored in solid steel vests and impenetrable steel helmets.

When we read our own history, the great actors who crowd our books are Dutu Gemunu, Dhatusena, Mahasen, Kashyapa, Anula and other victorious Kings and Queens. Even in Tamil history, Kings such as Elara and Arya Chakravarthi are mentioned only in the context of war situations. History is written by the victor and that victor is always backed by what Eisenhower described as ‘the military-industrial complex’; the expression gained popularity after a warning of the detrimental effects of the relationship between the rulers and the defense industry, in the farewell address of U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower on January 17, 1961. Those who manufacture arms and ammunition for ultimate use of war, war of man against man, would finally dictate the terms of reference for history writers.

Yes, we are also told about the great stupas, giant tanks and other epic poems written by Thotagamuwe Sri Rahula and Wettewe Theros, but such literary masterpieces do eventually give way to accommodate the military might and brandishing weaponry of the war-heroes. When history is learnt in terms of the various wars and conflicts that occurred in the past, it becomes increasingly obvious that labeling the various groupings and individuals and holding them within those cells and bubbles becomes necessary for the introduction and description of the groups and individuals to classify them in a given vocabulary.

Bolsheviks and Mensheviks are such labels that began their frequent usage in the context of the Great Russian October Revolution and its aftermath. To describe our current President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National People’s Power (NPP) in such terms and a circumstance is a redundancy. We have come a long way from such frivolous labels and sloganeering. Reactionary and progressive, liberal and conservative, socialist and capitalist do belong in the past and unfortunately or fortunately, the past is dead. We must move forward, dispelling the old garbs and garbage if we are intent on achieving even a modicum of the success that our ancestors had attained.

NPP may be the same old Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) which was instrumental in provoking and launching two insurrections, the first in 1971 and the second in the ’87-’89 period. The JVP is a leftist party, founded on the principles of Marxist/Maoist theories. Its main economic agenda was to spearhead a totally state-owned, closed economy. The commanding heights of the economy, land, labor, capital and enterprise would have been owned by the state at the pinnacle of which is the Party, JVP. When Rohana Wijeweera sketched his plans for the revolutionary takeover of the country’s governance machinery, it was in the midst of the ‘cold war’ in the global arena. The undeclared battle between America and the then Soviet Union dictated to their respective satellite countries the foreign policies of those satellites. And at that time ‘profit’ was an obscene term.

In 1971, Ceylon was being ruled by a democratically elected Kandyan Radala (aristocratic) Woman. Even she was using the term, reactionary, to describe the United National Party (UNP). She labeled herself as a progressive woman. The electorate accepted it, and that was the real tragedy in this whole equation.  Her main protagonists, among others, were TB Ilangaratne, Badiudeen Mohamed, Stanley Tilakaratne, RS Perera, NM Perera, Colvin R De Silva and Peter Keuneman Et al. Ironically all those who claimed to be progressives were the die-hard conventional leftists like NM Perera, Colvin and Keuneman. Labels did not matter, at all.

To what category of labels can AKD and his NPP team be catalogued? Profit is no mean word for him, yet AKD is definitely not a right-wing politician. He is not a conservative nor a liberal in the context of Nehru, Bandaranaike or Obama. Yet  he is far from being a conservative in the sense of JRJ or DS Senanayake being labeled as one. He never mentioned the word, socialism or socialist during his election campaign. He is not a Stalinist or a Leninist; he may be a Leninist in thinking but his public conduct and his governance methodology is nowhere near the way Lenin embarked on his post-revolution state-rule. AKD inherited a bankrupt nation; he won an election in which the plurality voted for him and his party gained more than a two thirds majority in the parliament elections. Stalin ruled Russia with an iron fist; his immediate cohort, Lavrentiy Beria, the Secret Police Chief (NKVD), sent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men to death who they thought were not in consort with the then state policy. AKD is no Stalinist. Were all Stalinists and Leninists leftists? If so, AKD is not a leftist.

Where are we going with these labels? There are more labels than actual men and women who could be labeled. Whatever the label we could attribute to AKD, our President, I’m certain that he does not believe in these superficial categorization and facilitation of them with identity politics. Identity politics kills the social progress to a great and unidentifiable degree. When we indulge in such narrow and shallow exercise of intellectual practice, we lose sight of rational thinking and rational action. Identifying AKD and his party in such narrow terms at this juncture of the country’s politics is injurious to its health and wealth.

To paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, it is extremely hard to keep one’s head balanced when others are losing theirs. A label provides an easy exit and easier entry. Identifying a political leader by label-ridden lingo lends the speaker an intrinsically irrational path whatever the end he or she wishes to reach. Any illogical or foolish enunciation gets clouded by a label that is seemingly fitting yet far from being authentic. A clearer picture always emerges if we let our leaders’ public and private conduct and their policies talk. Then we will see the real and correct man emerges; from beyond the labels we have tried to paint them in.                     

AKD is not a reactionary; he is no conservative; he is no leftist in the traditional sense nor is he a rightist by any means. He was the answer to an immediate question and even a more urgent need. As all rational leaders thought and acted, he launched a political program and he recognized and identified the most urgent problems and issues that angered the people. When others opted to indulge in the same old identity politics and traditional campaigns, he dared to choose a rational path. His success so far has been because of that rationality which follows him wherever he travels and whomever he hugs and shakes hands with. Such leaders are rare. How far he would travel with this humility and with such charisma and composure, we do not know. But it is everyone’s wish that he would go as far as he could, with the same stamina and the same will.

*The writer can be reached at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com